Private property: a silver bullet to socialist vampires
By Jon Rappoport
"Once private property is abolished, the advocates for utopia
win. They build their heaven on earth, which means they can take what
they want and run civilization, top-down. They can keep saying nobody
owns anything, but in fact they own it all. They execute this squeeze
play as if they were messiahs eradicating the prime evil. This is such a
preposterous stage play that, in a sane society, it would close down
after one night." (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
PART ONE
Newsflash: There is a difference between an idea and the way that idea is applied in practice.
The idea of private property can certainly be twisted to
mean, "I will steal what you have, make it my own, and then declare it
is my property, over which I have control."
But the idea of private property remains independent of what people will do to distort it. A child used to be able to see this.
Centuries of struggle resulted in a shift from monarchs and
priest classes owning all available land, to individuals having the
right to own land.
Once that principle was firmly established, groups immediately tried to modify the principle to their advantage.
In 1776, a group called the Illuminati declared its existence
in Bavaria. One of its guiding ideas was: the abolition of all private
property. That concept traveled down to Karl Marx and the Communist
agenda.
Private property was called an inherent crime. Instead, the people/everybody would own all property.
This garbled incoherent pronouncement would be backed up by
the ruling government, who would act as stewards for the
masses---meaning the government would take control of all property until
such time as the people evolved to the point where the State was
unnecessary.
As a straight con, it was very weak. A two-bit hustler on a
street corner with a folding table and three cards could see through it
in a second.
The people evolving? The State withering away on its own? Equality defined as everybody owning everything?
Of course, if people injected their own utopian fantasies
into the mix, if people assumed the government was a beneficent force
for good, if people assumed there was an "everybody" operating
unanimously, if people fantasized about a history of tribes (who fought
wars against each other) gracefully abdicating the whole notion of
individual property...well then, yes, the abolition of private property
became a marvelous proposition.
In the light of day, however, with a clear mind, the idea was
terrible. It was quite insane. It signaled a transfer of property from
the individual to power-mad lunatics posing as "the people."
Needless to say, this idea of no-private-property is alive
and well on planet Earth today. We are in another round of
fantasy-drenched propaganda.
In a nutshell, the threat of pure private property is: it
establishes individual rights that stand against the unchecked force of
the government-corporate-banking nexus. It implies the individual is
free, independent, and the ruler of what he owns.
To which the addled mind replies: "But suppose a person is
polluting his land and the poison is running beyond his borders and
endangering others?"
Well, that is called a crime. It should be prosecuted. It should be stopped.
The fact that it is often ignored doesn't negate the whole
assumption of private property. It points to the corruption of public
officials who refuse to prosecute the offender.
Here is utopia laid bare: the government and its partners,
who are doing everything they can to limit, squash, and outlaw the
individual right to own property, are the same force that is acting as
the wondrous representative of all the people; surrender to this force;
give it power to appropriate all property and hold it in trust, for that
day when the population has risen to enlightenment, when the open
sharing of "everything" is a natural impulse. Then victory will be ours.
Not the iron fist. The open helping hand. Not the hammer. The smiling guide. Not the monarch. The servant of humanity.
If you buy that one, I have waterfront condos for sale on
Jupiter's four moons. No terms. Cash up front. Construction begins in
2058. Promise.
The Homeowners Association actually owns the condos and the
land. They are a subsidiary of the Jupiter Government Authority. There
are rules. No flags of any kind flying from porches. No privately owned
electricity generators. No growing of vegetables or fruit on the land.
No weapons. Domiciles must be shared with migrants arriving from Earth.
The migrants are given beds, meals, and clothing. Possessions are
shared. The prime directive: everything belongs to everybody. Power to
the people.
PART TWO
There is a direct line from Adam Weishaupt's secret society,
the Illuminati, which he formed in Bavaria in 1776, to Karl Marx, and
onward to the modern Globalist agenda.
One of the key shared ideas: the abolition of private property.
Many people hold a negative view of Weishaupt, the
Illuminati, and especially Marx, and so it fell to Globalists to couch
their ideas about property in more acceptable terms.
That feat (one of many attempted) was expressed, in 1976, by
Carla Hills, US Trade Representative and a key member of the Rockefeller
Trilateral Commission. Hills is credited as the principal architect of
the Globalist NAFTA Treaty, which has destructively affected the US and
Mexican economies.
Patrick Wood, author of the classic, Technocracy Rising,
unearthed Hills' brief statement on private property. I've broken her
remarks up into three parts, so I can comment after each mind-bending
point.
Carla Hills: "Land, because of its unique nature and the
crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an
ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures
and inefficiencies of the market."
Her use of the term "human settlements" is curious, as is her
reference to "crucial role it [land] plays." Is she trying to take us
back to an ancient period in human history, when people were first
abandoning nomadic existence and turning to agriculture and fixed
communities? It appears so. She wants us to think of land in terms of
"oh, look, we can stop wandering and live here, and this space of soil
will play 'a crucial role' in our future." It's been centuries since
private ownership of land became a reality. But Hills doesn't like
acknowledging that. And through her use of "human settlements," she also
wants us to believe that the ancient concept of an entire community
moving on to land to live is the only valid view. An individual staking a
claim to land or buying it is verboten. It's a corruption of the
natural order.
I assume Hills isn't living in a kibbutz or a commune. I feel
certain she owns a home. But as an elite socialist, she's excused. The
arbiters who should decide the disposition of all lands, for the rest of
us, deserve their perks. They need their own space, in order to think
more clearly.
Hills asserts that private ownership of property isn't
ordinary and can't be thought of that way. Individuals shouldn't
"control it." And the free market causes problems. Well, of course, the
free market causes problems, if you assume that no one should own more
land than anyone else. And yes, private ownership, based on hard work,
is inefficient, if that means some super-government can't take land away
"for the public good."
Hills stops short of saying government should own all land, but that's where she's going.
She continues: "Private land ownership is also a principal
instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore
contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major
obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes."
Social injustice, that familiar theme. Some people might own
more land than others. That's not right. That's unjust. There should be
no reward for hard work and intelligence. No. Instead, there is only
planning from above. The wise demi-golds, who have our best interests at
heart, can decide all the uses to which land is put. They can own huge
tracts of land themselves, because they are gods. But the rest of us
must submit to the development schemes they lay out. Only bitter
clingers, who actually work for a living and strive and make their own
way in the world, believe in private property. They're for social
injustice. They don't want to give way to Greater Sharing.
Finally, Hills states: "Social justice, urban renewal and
development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions
for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of
society as a whole."
Kinder and gentler vision. Just launch a plan to give
EVERYONE a decent dwelling and healthy conditions. That's how land
should be used and thought of. No more private property. EVERYONE, of
course, includes people (in unlimited numbers---no ceiling) who come
here from anywhere in the world. And they come because here they'll get
justice. They should get free housing. They should get "healthy
conditions." No problem. Eventually, everyone gets a 20-foot by 20-foot
square box to live in.
What could go wrong?
Carla Hills is couching her statement to avoid the heavy
philosophy and militant threat and totalitarian thrust of the Illuminati
and Marx, but she's on the same page. She's "sustainable" and "green"
and "kind" and "thoughtful" and "caring." She's perfect for self-styled
liberals and the virtue-signaling Clueless.
She's part of the tradition that wants to take down the individual spirit and stuff it in the collective.
I know many people (and I'm sure you do, too) who have worked
hard, bought land, built a home, raised children, who would
nevertheless applaud Carla Hills' statement. They've succeeded in
compartmentalizing their minds. It never occurs to them that if the
Globalist dream came true, they would wake up one day with their homes
and property ripped out from under them. If they think about it at all,
they think they can have it both ways. They can continue to live as
they've been living, but somehow, at the same time, social justice will
be served.
They're in a dream. It's so pretty. For them.
There is no iron hand, no Lenin, no Marx, no Stalin. All the
land is dotted with lovely little free cottages nestled in valleys, and
it's spring, and the trees are flowering.
Down a country road, in his wheelchair, comes arch-Globalist
George Soros, cackling and humming and talking on the phone with his
broker. He's flanked by bodyguards. Perched on nearby hills, snipers are
in position, just in case a threat develops.
A young boy approaches him. Soros raises his hand, signaling his hidden shooters to hold their fire.
"Mr. Soros," the boy says, "I'm studying civics in school,
and I'm trying to figure out who EVERYONE is. Because EVERYONE owns
everything."
Soros chuckles. "That's an advanced lesson, son. You'll learn about it in college."
Soros reaches into his pocket and tosses the boy a dime. "Go
buy yourself an ice cream soda, and remember where you got the money. I
stand for charity. Good works hold us all together."
"What's an ice cream soda?" the boy asks.
Soros shrugs. "I have no idea. It's just something I say. But
if you study hard in school, perhaps someday I'll contact your parents,
take you under my wing, and teach you how to short the currency of a
whole nation and make a billion dollars in a few weeks, while
simultaneously preaching that no one owns anything and everyone owns
everything. It's the most beautiful hustle you've ever seen."
No comments:
Post a Comment